An interesting case that raises questions about religious liberties and religious discrimination was reported by the Miami Herald yesterday:
"A woman is suing her former employer, a telecommunications firm with Muslim workers and clients, claiming she was fired because she ate pork products in the company lunchroom. Pork is unclean, according to Islamic beliefs, and Rising Star Telecommunications CEO Kujaatele Kweli said his company has a policy against openly eating or preparing the meat. But the attorney for Lina Morales, an administrative assistant fired in March 2003, said the company admits there is no written policy against pork. And when Morales complained she was being disciplined for a policy of which she was unaware, she was fired for insubordination."
A Central Florida news station, Local 6, reported that, "Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report." Local 6 quoted Kweli as saying, "Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can."
The practice of religion (or atheism for that matter) is a critical freedom- inseparable from freedom of conscience- and much worth protecting. The state, however, has a compelling interest in commerical workplaces free from discrimination. It is one thing for a religious organization, a church or charity for example, to create a workplace that does not contradict religious beliefs. It is altogether another thing for a commercial enterprise dominated by a religious group to impose beliefs and practices on employees of differing or no faith. In the former case, employees accept the religious mission of their employer as a fact of employment, in the latter case there is no such mission and no such consent- there is only discrimination.
Having said as much, any matter imposing secular standards over and above religious practice is not to be dismissed lightly- regardless of the religion in question. Recent court decisions in California and in other jurisdictions have held, for example, that charities of the Catholic Church must include contraception and abortion amongst health benefits offered to employees. This, despite the Church's irreconcileable moral and dogmatic opposition to the "benefits." What the court decides in one case will take hold in others.
Kweli confuses religious liberty with religious discrimination and Rising Star Telecommunications is in clear violation of employment law. Friends of the First Amendment should not rush to celebrate a likely victory, however, because the precedents established when courts impose secular norms too often impact religious liberty in future disputes.
Update: Tom at Redhunter also addressed this story today.
Posted by publius at August 5, 2004 07:02 AMYou mean with an exention of the law, the exchanging of Christmas gifts in the workplace may be outlawed? arggg!
Posted by: Jane at August 5, 2004 12:22 AMWell, one can no longer use the word "Christmas" in the workplace because one might "offend" others. Never mind that being silenced by secular norms is also offensive.
Posted by: Publius at August 5, 2004 09:14 AMSituations like the one you describe present the multiculturalists with a quandry. On the one hand they demand that we accept all immigrants/minorities unquestioningly and "respect" their beliefs. But what to do if the belief system of an immigrants/minorities contradicts our ideas of tolerance, fair play, democracy, etc.
The way I see it, we should be able to exchange Christmas gifts in the workplace, and, yes, even say the word "Christmas". Muslims can do the same with Ramadan, and so on down the line. But noone should be required to do these things. If the employers at Rising Star don't want to eat pork, fine. But they should not be allowed to force that on other.
Which makes me wonder if the liberals to talk so much about tolerance will make the Muslim owners tolerate the differing beliefs of at least one of their owners.
Tolerance must work both ways
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at August 5, 2004 09:23 AMImmigrant roots are one of America's great strengths. Assimilation is equally important, however, because without an overriding national culture, balkanization is a real threat. Between these poles, one can find much room for ethnic and religious celebration. Having said as much, a majority need not abandon it's culture to accomodate immigrant minorities. For example, America should not impose a national Sunday to Thursday work week to accomodate Friday prayers. Within the framework of a majority culture, there must be room for minority cultures and religions to thrive, but not impose their own beliefs on the majority.
Posted by: Publius at August 5, 2004 02:50 PMA few points, if I may.
Local 6 is a cable TV stations that is more than happy to make a molehill resemble a mountain if it'll boost ratings. Anything that might make Muslims look bad is fair game for them, accurate or not.
Second, the employer in this instance is utterly within his rights on several counts.
a) in Florida, a right-to-work state, an employer can fire an employee for no reason whatsoever. If the boss doesn't like the color of your shoes, you can be legally fired.
b) unless a contract stipulates otherwise, the boss gets to make the rules about the workplace. In this instance, the employer--for his own reasons--said "no pork in the workplace". His reasons happened to be related to his own religious preferences, but if he just didn't like the smell of pork, he's just as covered. His motivation is immaterial.
c) US Federal law cites very few protections for workers. Their own religious values, race, color and national origin pretty much sum it up. In this instance, the employee was not hindered in exercising any part of her religion: Catholicism does not require eating pork.
d) you may want to consider this case from some other angles. Would this be offensive if PETA had fired her? Would it be offensive--or equally offensive--if a strict, Hassidic Jew had fired her? I respectfully suggest you get in touch with some Hassidic Jews and ask them about ritual cleanliness. I assume you can make the PETA parallel yourself.
This is merely an attempt to incite anger toward Muslims. The woman had been warned previously and decided a BLT was more important than her job.
Posted by: JFB at August 12, 2004 09:12 PMThank you for your comments, and apologies for the delay in my response.
I can not comment on your characterization of Local 6 as a cable television station "... that is more than happy to make a molehill resemble a mountain if it'll boost ratings." Your statement me be true, it may be false, or it may be somewhere between the two. As I do not live in Florida or own a television, I have limited means of independent verification. My post did cite the Miami Herald as a source for the story because I have found that the televised media do not provide comprehensive coverage comparable to the print media. I do not think that the Miami Herald can be so easily dismissed.
I will concede that Islam is much in the public spotlight as a result of the 9-11 attacks on America by Islamists. While public scrutiny opens the door to over reaction and bigotry, it also opens the door to understanding and enlightenment. For the latter reason, I think shining the spotlight on Islam is good for Muslims and the West over the long term. Americans are an educated people and over time, the scrutiny will bring a reasonably balanced understanding of Islam, and the difference between Islam and Islamism. The scrutiny may also force Muslims to confront the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam and the largely intolerant Islam presented in the Koran the Hadiths.
You raise a number of interesting points regarding employment law. At a theoretical level, I am sympathetic to an unhindered interpretation of right to work laws (though I do worry that such an interpretation could result in a balkanized workforce). The 1964 Civil Rights Act, however, impacts right to work laws at many levels- an employee may not be discriminated against for sharing or not sharing an employer's religious convictions. In the case at hand, it may also be relevant that there was no written policy regarding pork in the workplace. Had the employee entered into a contract of employment with an understanding that dietary restrictions were a fact of employment I would be sympathetic to the employer. My understanding is that the employer provided no such written or pre-established policy.
You raise the question of organizations with analogous dietary prohibitions- I will stand by the argument outlined in my original posting. A specifically religious organization, or for that matter an organization of conscience or dietary practice ought to be able to craft policies and provide benefits consistent with legitimate religious beliefs and practices. Having said as much, commercial enterprises without religious or dietary purpose do not require the same leeway. A Jewish telecommunications firm may not fire an employee who brings non-kosher food to work, whereas a restaurant certified as kosher has a legitimate reason for doing so. PETA need not allow lobsters to be boiled in their cafeteria, but should not intrude on the dietary practices of employees while at home.
I suspect that we agree more than we disagree on this matter. Society has an interest in carving out the broadest possible protections for religious belief and practice. I do appreciate your reasoned commentary.